Robo

I can guarantee I'll be saying the same thing as I am now and that is the following:-
Whatever will be will be.
Danny is the one with his head on the block.
He'll be judged against his decisions but only once the consequences of his decisions have been allowed to become clear.
If that means relegation then that's what it'll mean. It's why we hire managers and then delegate responsibilty for our clubs immediate future on the pitch to them.
IMO no manager should be sacked other than during the summer regardless of the performance of the team unless there is gross misconduct.
Me or any fan pissing themselves with worry will make no positive difference to anything.
Relegation is relegation. It's not life or death. It's happened before, it'll happen again almost certainly. Maybe this year maybe not.
The premise here is very simple. I want to enjoy watching football.
It's not enjoyable if I treat every match as a stressfest.
To make this even clearer. I'd rather stop going than get myself into the state some people are doing after just one match.
In fairness I've been posting along these lines for years.

This touches on something I had been thinking about a while back with regards to how fans (whether it be 10000 Hours, SMISA, or some other organisation) could invest in the club now, and still work towards a longer term goal of fan ownership. I sent an idea on to REA a few months back but would be interested to see what others thought.
The jist was that the pledges that had been made to fund the 10000 hours bid would instead be used to invest in the youth development program, with perhaps a small amount set aside each month to build up a cash reserve. Some agreement would be reached with the club whereby a portion of the proceeds from the sale of any players who came through the youth system would be allocated to fans investment vehicle - this would be dependant on how much of the youth development program's budget would be funded by the fans. This would allow the fans group to accumulate funds with a view to buying shares in the club, admittedly over a longer period of time. There would be no debt taken on, and the worst case scenario is that there are no qualifying transfers of players that would bring any return on the investment, but even so, the fan's money would still have been invested directly in the club.
I have the utmost respect for the folks trying to raise money for the club but, at the end of the day, St Mirren is not a charity (as is borne out by the fact that the majority shareholders are looking to sell up for a considerable sum of money). So if the fans are investing money in the youth development program, should they not be entitled to a return on that investment?
Edited to add, that I am no businessman, and I have no idea what the youth development budget is, so feel free to pick holes in this!

This forum is a disgrace.
Constructive criticism is a good thing but overall the forum is full of shit! Folk with no idea about football (maybe as they have never played the game at any level themselves or simply just don't get it) and folk who have nothing of any note to add but just abuse.
Some of you need a reality check... There are bigger clubs than us in lower divisions or worse situations than us.
A few folk need to take a reality check and get a grip!

Scottish Disease alert!!!!!
Jealousy kills. Just say no.

TBH I really, really can't be bothered getting as emotional as some people seem to be getting. I haven't turned a blind eye. I've just made some observations and got on with the rest of my life.
There are far more important things to worry about IMO.
St.Mirren are a football team I've followed for tens of years, during which there have been some unbelievable highs and lows. A sense of perspective is required by some IMO.
Our current situation is nowhere near the level of the really low points I've experienced. I'm not wholly unmoved by our current situation, but my kecks are relatively dry at present.
Still,I suppose it's an individuals choice to character assassinate certain individuals from behind a computer keyboard and to get their blood pressure beyond acceptable levels.

I think this is an important point also. I've felt for a long time that Scotland has a national inferiority complex - an 'everythings shite', 'we've no hope' kind of attitude (could easily stray into another arguement here, but I won't...). We are comfortable with the plucky underdog tag and I wonder if that is part of what prevents our sportsmen and women from becoming international or world class.
I also think that from a football perspective, the ambition of too many young players is to play for one of the old firm - once they've done that, they've made it. Far too few Scottish players try to make it on the continent - Lambert and Collins are examples of the improvement that can be achieved in doing so.

Actually Coventry City fans would claim that it wasn't poor management but quite the opposite. They believe that SISU is a hedge fund that was created to put Coventry City into liquidation so it could profit from buying the stadium on the cheap. Take from that what you will but the fans are suffering.
There was an excellent programme on TV earlier this week that charted Swansea City's plight over the last decade from being sold for £1 and almost going out of the football league to being bought by fans who have since delivered Premiership Football, a League Cup win and a return to Europe. The best and only way forward for clubs like Coventry City, Hearts and even for the likes of St Mirren, who have a majority shareholding up for sale, is for the fans to take control of the club.

I think this is an important point also. I've felt for a long time that Scotland has a national inferiority complex - an 'everythings shite', 'we've no hope' kind of attitude (could easily stray into another arguement here, but I won't...). We are comfortable with the plucky underdog tag and I wonder if that is part of what prevents our sportsmen and women from becoming international or world class.
I also think that from a football perspective, the ambition of too many young players is to play for one of the old firm - once they've done that, they've made it. Far too few Scottish players try to make it on the continent - Lambert and Collins are examples of the improvement that can be achieved in doing so.

You're right.
I call this the Scottish Disease.
Lack of ambition, lack of vision, scared to even attempt at success for fear of failure, ridicule and the "putting people in their place" loser clique who've destroyed this once great country. We all hate true winners in this country of ours - taking delight in their successes only to take even greater joy seeing them fall into ruin - back in with the rest of us in the cesspit of despair.
It comes from having a country which doesn't even control it's own finances and is a fertile ground for breeding complacency and dependency. You'll see the extent of that next year when after 700 years of English bashing racism, resentment, conflict, death, anger and frustration, millions of Scots will literally clart their pants with fear at the prospect of leaving the family home and becoming responsible for themselves and thus voting to stay in the Union with Daddy England looking after all our bills. An argument for another day though......

Am I alone in thinking we have a higher percentage of tosspots as supporters(and I use that term very loosely)at our club.I cant believe the level of abuse directed at one of our own and although we all have opinions when that degenerates to just downright personal attacks on players I feel the need to reply.Please don't sit on your computers spouting your pish but meet me at Inverness on Saturday and I will tell you how hard he has worked to get where he is.I might even get his League Cup Winners medal to show you.

That's a fair point, and ultimately the one that would decide whether this type of investment would be feasible - i.e. would £100k per annum be 5% or 50% of the total budget. No idea what the answer to that is. Of course, the money invested needn't be limited to the monthly subscriptions. If all fundraising by fans were to be included (saints aid, etc) then the figure could be more substantial. This obviously would need buy-in from those involved in fundraising, and I accept many may prefer the idea of just donating money to the club.
Sent from my HTC One V using Black & White Army mobile app

This touches on something I had been thinking about a while back with regards to how fans (whether it be 10000 Hours, SMISA, or some other organisation) could invest in the club now, and still work towards a longer term goal of fan ownership. I sent an idea on to REA a few months back but would be interested to see what others thought.
The jist was that the pledges that had been made to fund the 10000 hours bid would instead be used to invest in the youth development program, with perhaps a small amount set aside each month to build up a cash reserve. Some agreement would be reached with the club whereby a portion of the proceeds from the sale of any players who came through the youth system would be allocated to fans investment vehicle - this would be dependant on how much of the youth development program's budget would be funded by the fans. This would allow the fans group to accumulate funds with a view to buying shares in the club, admittedly over a longer period of time. There would be no debt taken on, and the worst case scenario is that there are no qualifying transfers of players that would bring any return on the investment, but even so, the fan's money would still have been invested directly in the club.
I have the utmost respect for the folks trying to raise money for the club but, at the end of the day, St Mirren is not a charity (as is borne out by the fact that the majority shareholders are looking to sell up for a considerable sum of money). So if the fans are investing money in the youth development program, should they not be entitled to a return on that investment?
Edited to add, that I am no businessman, and I have no idea what the youth development budget is, so feel free to pick holes in this!

This touches on something I had been thinking about a while back with regards to how fans (whether it be 10000 Hours, SMISA, or some other organisation) could invest in the club now, and still work towards a longer term goal of fan ownership. I sent an idea on to REA a few months back but would be interested to see what others thought.
The jist was that the pledges that had been made to fund the 10000 hours bid would instead be used to invest in the youth development program, with perhaps a small amount set aside each month to build up a cash reserve. Some agreement would be reached with the club whereby a portion of the proceeds from the sale of any players who came through the youth system would be allocated to fans investment vehicle - this would be dependant on how much of the youth development program's budget would be funded by the fans. This would allow the fans group to accumulate funds with a view to buying shares in the club, admittedly over a longer period of time. There would be no debt taken on, and the worst case scenario is that there are no qualifying transfers of players that would bring any return on the investment, but even so, the fan's money would still have been invested directly in the club.
I have the utmost respect for the folks trying to raise money for the club but, at the end of the day, St Mirren is not a charity (as is borne out by the fact that the majority shareholders are looking to sell up for a considerable sum of money). So if the fans are investing money in the youth development program, should they not be entitled to a return on that investment?
Edited to add, that I am no businessman, and I have no idea what the youth development budget is, so feel free to pick holes in this!

Personally I think this thread is a sad commentary on the state of the club. With 52% of shares bonded together for sale to a single majority shareholder you would think there would be some alarm, especially since majority shareholders at other SPL clubs have brought about huge debt, administration and even liquidation. But no. At St Mirren the support are all standing around hoping that someone with a bit of money will stump up the cash for those shares and they trust Gilmour and Co to ensure they don't get "duped" into selling to the wrong person despite the obvious conflict of interest.
For all the online posturing not one willing leader has emerged. No-one apparently has enough love for the club to put themselves forward, and a major reason for that is because they know that if they do there will be a pack of hyenas waiting to smear them at every turn. Even the two groups that are supposed to represent "fans" of the club aren't interested or capable of galvanising the support to make a bid. And all this despite the fact that Richard Atkinson and 10000hours managed to garner enough support to put together a bid even though the plan was deemed flawed by many.
I'd like to see someone revisit the initial plan for the CIC and stick to the pure principles that were initially outlined, with one member one vote - no elevated voting rights for any individual and with room for a community membership with clearly defined benefits in return for a membership fee. There shouldn't be any need for grants from any source, cause 52% of a business that doesn't turn a profit isn't worth much at all.

Right that's the final straw
I am totally fed up with these fantasies that pass as rumours.
There was a time when genuine posters would give us real insight into who the club were looking at
I used to come on here to see who we might be chasing but all I get is either
attention seekers with nothing better to do except pretend they know more than they do, wind up merchants who think they are funny but are in reality sad,irritating little boys or fantasists who live on some other planet. No more!!

The draft articles state that the rules for calling a members meeting would be as per the Companies Act 2006, which states that 5% of members would be required to force a meeting. So assuming we will have around 1000 members, you'd need to garner support of around 50 or so. I think the same percentage is required for a resolution to be circulated for an AGM. I would imagine if its an issue that the members are genuinely concerned about, it shouldn't be too difficult to get 50 members together.

The draft articles state that the rules for calling a members meeting would be as per the Companies Act 2006, which states that 5% of members would be required to force a meeting. So assuming we will have around 1000 members, you'd need to garner support of around 50 or so. I think the same percentage is required for a resolution to be circulated for an AGM. I would imagine if its an issue that the members are genuinely concerned about, it shouldn't be too difficult to get 50 members together.

The draft articles state that the rules for calling a members meeting would be as per the Companies Act 2006, which states that 5% of members would be required to force a meeting. So assuming we will have around 1000 members, you'd need to garner support of around 50 or so. I think the same percentage is required for a resolution to be circulated for an AGM. I would imagine if its an issue that the members are genuinely concerned about, it shouldn't be too difficult to get 50 members together.

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how it would work in practice, but there would have to be some mechanism for members to have proposals added to the agenda of an AGM.
As the draft articles stand at the moment, a general meeting can be called if requested by 5% of members. So for example, you would just need to get 50 or so members to request an EGM to discuss a proposal to, say, instruct the SMFC board to reject any application of entry to the SPL by a Newco. That would then be voted on, and action taken as a result.
Presumably the 5% rule is to prevent meetings being called every other week, because someone thinks the pies are too expensive, or we should sack DL because he subbed Carey instead of Teale etc.

Well, the 1877 and 87 club members are shelling out a lot more than a tenner a month, and in the case of the 1877 club they're buying a significant shareholding in SMFC. The important point is that they still only get 1 vote as a member of 10000 hours.
My own expectations of 10000 hours are that the fans will own a majority shareholding in SMFC, preventing a Reg Brealey character ever getting has hands on the club, that we'll get to vote at the 10,000 hours AGMs, and that if you so wish you could stand for election to the CIC board. As others have said already, I didn't ever get the impression that the CIC would be run of the basis of referendums for every issue.

Well, the 1877 and 87 club members are shelling out a lot more than a tenner a month, and in the case of the 1877 club they're buying a significant shareholding in SMFC. The important point is that they still only get 1 vote as a member of 10000 hours.
My own expectations of 10000 hours are that the fans will own a majority shareholding in SMFC, preventing a Reg Brealey character ever getting has hands on the club, that we'll get to vote at the 10,000 hours AGMs, and that if you so wish you could stand for election to the CIC board. As others have said already, I didn't ever get the impression that the CIC would be run of the basis of referendums for every issue.

De-list the company from where?

Having a go at the CIC??? I've already pledged my membership - I was just interested in how the CIC is structured and assumed that a dedicated Q&A thread might be a good place to get an answer. But apparently not.
Not a dig a you, just surprised how some people can appear to get so irritated at someone asking a question.